Throughout much of Western history, art has been used by leaders, governments, and political parties as propaganda to reinforce and spread their ideology, sometimes in ways that the artist may not have intended. This almost always has consequences for the work's connotation thus forward.
One such work of art that exemplifies this usage is Symphony No. 7 by Russian composer Dmitri Shostakovich. At the time, this work was believed to have been composed during the Nazi siege of Leningrad in 1941. This siege lasted almost 900 days and over 500,000 civilians lost their lives. The work quickly gained popularity as a patriotic statement of resolve for the people held under siege in the city of Leningrad and as a piece of propaganda for the fight against fascism in the West. As such, it was publicly performed 62 times during the 1942-43 concert season. In recent decades, however, some speculation has arisen among musicologists that Shostakovich may have actually begun work on the symphony as a quiet statement against Stalin’s totalitarian regime, but was forced to alter the piece's motivation and aim when war broke out.
If this is true, it creates some interesting complications surrounding this particular work. Today, the piece is often viewed as a tribute to the citizens of Leningrad and as a message that hope can prevail in the face of desperation. Whatever the true motivation was for the composition of this piece, it has transcended the tumultuous times of its birth and still continues to speak to audiences around the world.
A darker and more extreme example (from the same time in history) of how the usage of art as propaganda can alter its connotation to subsequent generations is the Nazi usage of the Swastika. As we touched on in class, this symbol has been used for thousands of years by different civilizations and religions to represent life, good luck, and strength. The Nazis adopted it for its nationalistic meaning and to represent the struggle of the Aryan race. I think it's fair to say even when viewing works of art produced prior to the 20th century that contain a Swastika, such as architecture, sculpture, paintings, etc, it is hard to dismiss the thoughts and feelings that this symbol now connotes. While this is unfortunate given the symbol's ancient history and once positive meaning, it now serves as a reminder that we must never let the tragedies of the past be repeated.
I wonder how much time will have to pass before this ancient symbol will escape the stain of the Nazi appropriation. Maybe it never will nor ever should, but that is a shame for those earlier cultures which are irrevocably defamed.
ReplyDeleteA message like "hope can prevail in the face of desperation" can work in both instances (surviving the seige of Leningrad or the totalitarian vise of Stalin) though, so the composition might have a bit of thematic flexibility that allows it to be (re)appropriated or re-contextualized by historians.
The larger question might be whether any artistic object can complete escape the attempt to use it for purposes beyond its own creation and existence. And even "art for art's sake" is a political statement and an ethical code in the end, isn't it? Is being an aesthete really a way to escape being a partisan of some sort?